Trump Administration Accomplishments

[mchammer]

Study history. America has sided with Democracy and against despots. It had armed the invaded, fought with its own soldiers when necessary then unselfishly worked for world recovery. Trump is less idealist than Truman and FDR. If you can't see it now you will in a few more months.

It has also provoked wars in areas where we have no strategic interest, as done in Ukraine.

 

[mchammer]

 

[mchammer]

Study history. America has sided with Democracy and against despots. It had armed the invaded, fought with its own soldiers when necessary then unselfishly worked for world recovery. Trump is less idealist than Truman and FDR. If you can't see it now you will in a few more months.

Ukraine is not a democracy, but a highly corrupt state. Its elections have been interfered in by both the CIA and the current version of the KGB.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

Maybe mean is just what the world needs...get on board or get run over.

Hopefully moderate Dems finally see Ukraine is a money pit from which not another dollar should go towards...

so here is my opinion. Many of us dislike the fact that the US is footing the bill for so much of the worlds security. NATO, UN, and most of these mini-conflicts around the globe...we pay the biggest part of the tab. I get that, and I also believe that. I get that DJT wants to make sure the US is not carrying the water for everyone around the world. I would have whole heartedly supported a firm approach to negotiating the minerals deal, but how you do things is often as important as what your intent is. IMO, DJT really screwed the pooch in this because he was in a hurry to prove to the world that he is the "dealmaker in Chief". He wanted to live up to his "I'll end the war as soon as I'm elected" statements. That kind of urgency really only leaves coercion as a tool.

Translating your/my/our disdain for the US carrying the financial burden for securing the world into a disdain for Zelenski and/or Ukraine is bad math.

 

[Garmel]

Come on, it's a bull$hit allegation. Not having elections during full blown wars is fairly common. For example, when Winston Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940, there hadn't been an election since 1935. And during that election, Churchill wasn't the Conservative Party leader. Neither was his predecessor. Stanley Baldwin was.

The UK didn't have an election during the war either. It waited until July 1945, when Churchill got his a$$ handed to him. (That's how it got the NHS.)

So where was Churchill's mandate? The people had elected his party, but it was 5 years earlier under different leadership and an appeasement foreign policy that was the opposite of Churchill's. And as soon as they had a chance, the people ousted Churchill.

But do we make Churchill sound like Stalin, Hitler, or Mao by calling him a "dictator?" No.

And unlike Ukraine, the UK wasn't to any meaningful degree occupied by foreign troops, and its population wasn't scattered to other nations as refugees. They were in a much better position to hold an election.

England wasn't a corrupt hellhole like Ukraine either.

With modern technology there is no reason to suspend an election.

He's also suspended the Russian language (back before the war) and any religion with so-called Russian ties, whatever that means.

Sorry, Ukraine does not operate like a democracy.

 

[Mr. Deez]

England wasn't a corrupt hellhole like Ukraine either.

With modern technology there is no reason to suspend an election.

He's also suspended the Russian language (back before the war) and any religion with so-called Russian ties, whatever that means.

Sorry, Ukraine does not operate like a democracy.

I'm not saying it operates like a democracy. I'm saying that even respectable countries that are in the middle of major wars usually don't operate like a democracy while the war is being waged.

But even with modern technology, it's pretty hard to hold an election when millions of your people have left the country and you don't necessarily know where they are and when thousands of foreign troops are in your country. How do you keep the foreign troops from interfering and keeping certain people from voting? How do you verify the votes that are cast from outside of Ukraine? You'd run into the same problems we complain about with mail-in balloting but on steroids.

And that demand coming from Russia is pretty comical.

 

[Garmel]

I'm not saying it operates like a democracy. I'm saying that even respectable countries that are in the middle of major wars usually don't operate like a democracy while the war is being waged.

But even with modern technology, it's pretty hard to hold an election when millions of your people have left the country and you don't necessarily know where they are and when thousands of foreign troops are in your country. How do you keep the foreign troops from interfering and keeping certain people from voting? How do you verify the votes that are cast from outside of Ukraine? You'd run into the same problems we complain about with mail-in balloting but on steroids.

And that demand coming from Russia is pretty comical.

Russia has elections but they are fixed for the most part.

Modern nations do not go without elections. Most of the country is Russia-free (80%). There really aren't legitimate excuses. The fact that Zelensky keeps fighting a war (and won't make a deal) that he can't win makes many suspect (like me) that he wants to hold onto power. They will eventually be conquered so that's why we need a peace deal fast.

The only way Ukraine wins is if we get directly involved.

 

[mchammer]

Russia has elections but they are fixed for the most part.

Modern nations do not go without elections. Most of the country is Russia-free (80%). There really aren't legitimate excuses. The fact that Zelensky keeps fighting a war (and won't make a deal) that he can't win makes many suspect (like me) that he wants to hold onto power. They will eventually be conquered so that's why we need a peace deal fast.

The only was Ukraine wins is if we get directly involved.

 

[nashhorn]

. They will eventually be conquered so that's why we need a peace deal fast.

The only was Ukraine wins is if we get directly involved.

Not cool with the televised coverage of this whole fiasco but I do not want to lose one American soldier over there.
I’m in the same camp as Garmel’s quote above.

 

[Horn6721]

Babylon Bee | Fake News You Can Trust

Babylon Bee is the definitive source of fake news you can trust.

babylonbee.com

Zelensky Tries Bold New Strategy Of Insulting The People He's Begging For Money From

 

[mb227]

so here is my opinion. Many of us dislike the fact that the US is footing the bill for so much of the worlds security. NATO, UN, and most of these mini-conflicts around the globe...we pay the biggest part of the tab. I get that, and I also believe that. I get that DJT wants to make sure the US is not carrying the water for everyone around the world. I would have whole heartedly supported a firm approach to negotiating the minerals deal, but how you do things is often as important as what your intent is. IMO, DJT really screwed the pooch in this because he was in a hurry to prove to the world that he is the "dealmaker in Chief". He wanted to live up to his "I'll end the war as soon as I'm elected" statements. That kind of urgency really only leaves coercion as a tool.

Translating your/my/our disdain for the US carrying the financial burden for securing the world into a disdain for Zelenski and/or Ukraine is bad math.

We SHOULD have disdain for a dictator that cannot account for more than half of what was shoveled to Ukraine. And he FURTHER earned that disdain by acting like a petulant pissant on American soil.

 

[horninchicago]

We SHOULD have disdain for a dictator that cannot account for more than half of what was shoveled to Ukraine. And he FURTHER earned that disdain by acting like a petulant pissant on American soil.

But, the TDS runs high in this thread.

 

[Horn6721]

FAFO About time

 

[Garmel]

 

[Horn6721]

This is from 2023. What's wrong with this picture? Yet Zelensky insulted USA by saying to Trump that Europe was doing more than USA was? How can ANYONE criticize Trump for kicking Z out?

 

[militaryhorn]

Come on, it's a bull$hit allegation. Not having elections during full blown wars is fairly common. For example, when Winston Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940, there hadn't been an election since 1935. And during that election, Churchill wasn't the Conservative Party leader. Neither was his predecessor. Stanley Baldwin was.

The UK didn't have an election during the war either. It waited until July 1945, when Churchill got his a$$ handed to him. (That's how it got the NHS.)

So where was Churchill's mandate? The people had elected his party, but it was 5 years earlier under different leadership and an appeasement foreign policy that was the opposite of Churchill's. And as soon as they had a chance, the people ousted Churchill.

But do we make Churchill sound like Stalin, Hitler, or Mao by calling him a "dictator?" No.

And unlike Ukraine, the UK wasn't to any meaningful degree occupied by foreign troops, and its population wasn't scattered to other nations as refugees. They were in a much better position to hold an election.

Did you not detect the sarcasm in my response?

Here turn this on

 

[Horn6721]

To add another area of vast fraud
Poster lkrainer
made the point in another thread about so many able bodied people on disability
There are over 70 Million on disability! In addition to disability they get SNAP qualify for housing aid and medicaid. The average income for pple on disability is over 48,000
If only a third is fraudulent think of the savings
And to keep it available for those who truly need it
Hope DOGE can attack those rolls soon

 

[Mr. Deez]

Russia has elections but they are fixed for the most part.

Ukraine could have a rigged election, but I doubt that would satisfy anybody.

Modern nations do not go without elections. Most of the country is Russia-free (80%).

But few modern nations have had a major war on their own soil in quite a long time. And yes, 80 percent of the country may not have Russian soldiers in it, but do we just ignore the 20 percent that does? And where are the people who inhabit the 80 percent? A lot of them are gone. Very tough to have an election that actually gauges the will of the people under those circumstances.

There really aren't legitimate excuses. The fact that Zelensky keeps fighting a war (and won't make a deal) that he can't win makes many suspect (like me) that he wants to hold onto power. They will eventually be conquered so that's why we need a peace deal fast.

The only way Ukraine wins is if we get directly involved.

To me that's a separate issue. I agree that the West is spinning its wheels and that we're at a sh1t or get off the pot moment. Nobody is sending combat troops to Ukraine, and that's what it would take for them to expel the Russians.

It's also entirely possible that Zelenskyy needs to have a tough conversation, but I'd rather see that happen behind closed doors. I also think Vance was a lot more antagonistic than Trump was and that Zelenskyy probably shouldn't have engaged especially in a language in which he's not particularly strong.

 

[Garmel]

Ukraine could have a rigged election, but I doubt that would satisfy anybody.



But few modern nations have had a major war on their own soil in quite a long time. And yes, 80 percent of the country may not have Russian soldiers in it, but do we just ignore the 20 percent that does? And where are the people who inhabit the 80 percent? A lot of them are gone. Very tough to have an election that actually gauges the will of the people under those circumstances.



To me that's a separate issue. I agree that the West is spinning its wheels and that we're at a sh1t or get off the pot moment. Nobody is sending combat troops to Ukraine, and that's what it would take for them to expel the Russians.

It's also entirely possible that Zelenskyy needs to have a tough conversation, but I'd rather see that happen behind closed doors. I also think Vance was a lot more antagonistic than Trump was and that Zelenskyy probably shouldn't have engaged especially in a language in which he's not particularly strong.

Okay, they lost a good part of their population. That doesn't really matter. If they lost a good part of their population during a natural disaster (disease, asteroid impact (lol) whatever) would you hold off elections? Hell no.

 

[VYFan]

Russia has elections but they are fixed for the most part.

Modern nations do not go without elections. Most of the country is Russia-free (80%). There really aren't legitimate excuses. The fact that Zelensky keeps fighting a war (and won't make a deal) that he can't win makes many suspect (like me) that he wants to hold onto power. They will eventually be conquered so that's why we need a peace deal fast.

The only way Ukraine wins is if we get directly involved.

I disagree with the election part, but agree nevertheless with your viewpoint. Every country has a constitution (written, otherwise, under transition or whatever— ours is the most potent in acceptance), but every place can be overwhelmed in the short term and need practical accommodation, which is basically what is going on. Z’s problem is not illegitimacy, but impotence.

Ukraine could have a rigged election, but I doubt that would satisfy anybody.



But few modern nations have had a major war on their own soil in quite a long time. And yes, 80 percent of the country may not have Russian soldiers in it, but do we just ignore the 20 percent that does? And where are the people who inhabit the 80 percent? A lot of them are gone. Very tough to have an election that actually gauges the will of the people under those circumstances.



To me that's a separate issue. I agree that the West is spinning its wheels and that we're at a sh1t or get off the pot moment. Nobody is sending combat troops to Ukraine, and that's what it would take for them to expel the Russians.

It's also entirely possible that Zelenskyy needs to have a tough conversation, but I'd rather see that happen behind closed doors. I also think Vance was a lot more antagonistic than Trump was and that Zelenskyy probably shouldn't have engaged especially in a language in which he's not particularly strong.

The whole thing was a little theatre-staged, so I try think of why. It’s obviously pre-negotiation puffery. Could it even be that Zelenskyy knows realistically that he has to give up something important (and will) but needs a public demonstration—with his own people as the audience—that he was as tough as he could be and went down swinging trying to get more? Ie, trying to avoid being considered the traitor in his own country who agreed to unequal terms after losing the war. So they stage him being told, and the world hearing it in real time, that he does not have the cards to make a better deal.

Just a theory: Trump says, “I’ll be the bad guy and cover for you with your base.”

 

[mb227]

Okay, they lost a good part of their population. That doesn't really matter. If they lost a good part of their population during a natural disaster (disease, asteroid impact (lol) whatever) would you hold off elections? Hell no.

Where was the concern for absent/displaced voters in the Carolinas in November?

 

[mchammer]

Wow - another Hitler analogy.

 

[Monahorns]

This is from 2023. What's wrong with this picture? Yet Zelensky insulted USA by saying to Trump that Europe was doing more than USA was? How can ANYONE criticize Trump for kicking Z out?

The context is that the US contributed the most to the Ukraine being destroyed. The two sides were ready to negotiate after 2 months of fighting. But...

 

[Monahorns]

But few modern nations have had a major war on their own soil in quite a long time. And yes, 80 percent of the country may not have Russian soldiers in it, but do we just ignore the 20 percent that does? And where are the people who inhabit the 80 percent? A lot of them are gone. Very tough to have an election that actually gauges the will of the people under those circumstances.

He also has outlawed opposing political parties and Russian Orthodox churches. Kiev also outlawed speaking in Russian before all this started. Zelensky isn't a good guy.

To me that's a separate issue. I agree that the West is spinning its wheels and that we're at a sh1t or get off the pot moment. Nobody is sending combat troops to Ukraine, and that's what it would take for them to expel the Russians.

You are correct here. Ukraine fought well with US weapons and training. It is more respectful to Ukraine to help them get back on a peaceful path, so they can have a normal country again.

It's also entirely possible that Zelenskyy needs to have a tough conversation, but I'd rather see that happen behind closed doors. I also think Vance was a lot more antagonistic than Trump was and that Zelenskyy probably shouldn't have engaged especially in a language in which he's not particularly strong.

I'm ambivalent about this. Whatever it takes to end the US sending billions of American dollars to them and end the destruction of their country.

Plus, I like that the real ugliness of politics is in the open for all to see. This is what politics is. It's gangsters doing gangster $h!t. LBJ used to show people his genitals in meetings to intimidate them into doing whatever he wanted. When we think politics is men in suits acting civilized to each other and acting nice to help the people, we are being deceived and unable to make good decisions about what we want our politicians to do. That is the best thing about Trump to me, he makes it clear to everyone what politics is.

 

[Monahorns]

I disagree with the election part, but agree nevertheless with your viewpoint. Every country has a constitution (written, otherwise, under transition or whatever— ours is the most potent in acceptance), but every place can be overwhelmed in the short term and need practical accommodation, which is basically what is going on. Z’s problem is not illegitimacy, but impotence.

The whole thing was a little theatre-staged, so I try think of why. It’s obviously pre-negotiation puffery. Could it even be that Zelenskyy knows realistically that he has to give up something important (and will) but needs a public demonstration—with his own people as the audience—that he was as tough as he could be and went down swinging trying to get more? Ie, trying to avoid being considered the traitor in his own country who agreed to unequal terms after losing the war. So they stage him being told, and the world hearing it in real time, that he does not have the cards to make a better deal.

Just a theory: Trump says, “I’ll be the bad guy and cover for you with your base.”

I have similar thoughts about this being staged. But now Stermer gave them two billion pounds. So who knows. But I still think this was made public for a purpose. Probably to help Zelensky with any domestic issues. He has to satisfy Azov, Right Sector, and the Svboda group.

 

[Hideo Gump Jr.]

Abraham Lincoln, who is probably the 2nd or 3rd most revered POTUS in our history also suspended elections during wartime.

Sorry for the late response but I'm just getting caught up on this thread.
Lincoln (like Wilson and FDR) was not a paradigm of civil liberties during wartime. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus, banished a congressman to the confederacy for opposing his policies, and threatened to throw Chief Justice Roger Tawney in prison.
But the 1864 general election was held.

 

[Monahorns]

Sorry for the late response but I'm just getting caught up on this thread.
Lincoln (like Wilson and FDR) was not a paradigm of civil liberties during wartime. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus, banished a congressman to the confederacy for opposing his policies, and threatened to throw Chief Justice Roger Tawney in prison.
But the 1864 general election was held.

Lincoln held the election but he cheated his @$$ off to make sure he won. Did literally illegal things.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Okay, they lost a good part of their population. That doesn't really matter. If they lost a good part of their population during a natural disaster (disease, asteroid impact (lol) whatever) would you hold off elections? Hell no.

It's not as crazy as you might assume. What if a flood had destroyed the most Republican 20 percent of Pennsylvania last year near election day and made it impossible for them to vote? Obviously that would make PA solidly blue. Would you really shrug that off rather than delay the election? And of course, a full scale military invasion is more disruptive than most natural disasters.

Not a lot of examples in recent years, but FWIW, New York City delayed it's mayoral primary election in the wake of 9/11. Are you aware of many countries having elections while under invasion? I'm aware of the Iraqi election, but the invaders were actually pushing for the election. Beyond that, I can't name any.

 

[Garmel]

It's not as crazy as you might assume. What if a flood had destroyed the most Republican 20 percent of Pennsylvania last year near election day and made it impossible for them to vote? Obviously that would make PA solidly blue. Would you really shrug that off rather than delay the election? And of course, a full scale military invasion is more disruptive than most natural disasters.

Not a lot of examples in recent years, but FWIW, New York City delayed it's mayoral primary election in the wake of 9/11. Are you aware of many countries having elections while under invasion? I'm aware of the Iraqi election, but the invaders were actually pushing for the election. Beyond that, I can't name any.

There's a difference between a delay or no elections.

We didn't even delay when western NC was destroyed by flooding from Helene. A month later they were voting.

Most places that get invaded seem not to have elections in the first place.

 

[mchammer]